B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is against the order made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on August 1 1977 rejecting reference sought by the petitioner herein against the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated February 27 1976 awarding compensation to her alongwith 16 other owners of land known as Bet Bhatha land of S. Nos. 33/part 32 and 130/part situate in village Maktampore in Broach District for purposes of construction of bridge across Narmada river near Jhadeshwar. It should be noted that the possession of the aforesaid three pieces of land of the petitioner was taken over on June 15 1973 by the Public Works Department of the State Government in pursuance of private negotiations with her in anticipation of the regular acquisition proceedings Notifications under secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in that behalf were issued on December 20 1973 and August 22 1974 respectively. Notice to file compensation claim was issued on September 3 1976 It is common ground that the petitioner was served with the aforesaid notice under sec. 9 and she had filed her statement of claim in respect of three pieces of land in pursuance thereof. The Special Land Acquisition officer concerned made an award on February 27 1976 awarding compensation inter alias to the petitioner for the aforesaid three pieces of land in sum of Rs. 11 40 The petitioner being aggrieved with the offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer had sought reference under sec. 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act by her application of April 7 1977 which was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his aforesaid order of August 1 1977 because according to him she was not entitled to seek reference as the three pieces of land in question were forfeited to the Government by an earlier order of August 14 1973 for nonpayment of the third instalment of the occupancy price. This order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of August 1 1977 is the subject matter of this revision before me which has been preferred under sec. 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Gujarat. This order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of August 1 1977 is the subject matter of this revision before me which has been preferred under sec. 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Gujarat. ( 2 ) I am of the opinion that this revision must clearly succeed obviously for the following reasons: the Special Land Acquisition Officer has acted in excess of jurisdiction inasmuch as he rejected the reference application of the petitioner on some extraneous grounds to the effect that the petitioner has ceased to be interested in the land since it was forfeited for non-payment of occupancy price. A few relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act should be referred to for purposes of understanding the challenge made in this revision application. ( 3 ) SEC 11 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for enquiry and award by Collector. Sub-sec. (i) of sec. 11 enjoins the Collector to inquire into the objections on the day so fixed for that purpose which any interested person has filed pursuant to the notice under sec. 9 to the measurement made under sec. 8 and into the value of the land on the date of the notification under sec. 4 and also to inquire about the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation. The Collector would be making award under his hand of- (I) the true area of the land ; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom or of whose claims he has information whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. Sec. 12 prescribes time when the award of the Collector is to assume finality. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 12 as it is material for purposes of this revision reads as under:" (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall except as hereinafter provided be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not of the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested". Sec. 12a which has been brought on the statute book by the Bombay Amendment Act 1953 (35 of 1953) provides for the amendment of award either suo motu by the Collector or on the application of the person interested. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 12a reads as under: (1) Any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or errors arising therefrom accidental slips or omissions may at any time not later than six months from the date of the award be corrected by the Collector either on his own motion or on the application of a person interested and the award so corrected shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. Sub-section (2)-of sec. 12a provides for recovery of the over payment made if the amendment of the award so Indicates It is therefore clear that till the award is amended under sec. 12a the award remains final between the Collector and the persons interested inter alia about the true area and the value of the land and the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested if there is any. On plain reading of sec. 12a this power of amendment is available for limited purpose namely for correction of award arising as a result of clerical or arithmetical mistake or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. Again the power is to be exercised within a period of six months from the date of the award. In other words the net effect of the combined reading of secs. 11 11 and 12a is that till the award is amended it will operate as final and binding between the Collector and the persons interested inter alia as to the true area of the land the value of the land and the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. ( 4 ) IN the long affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government it has nowhere been claimed that this award in question made on February 27 1976 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was amended if at all it could have been amended within the prescribed period of limitation under sec. 12a of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) IN the long affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government it has nowhere been claimed that this award in question made on February 27 1976 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was amended if at all it could have been amended within the prescribed period of limitation under sec. 12a of the Land Acquisition Act. If the award is not amended as it does not seem to be and since no reference is made to this important fact in the affidavit-in-reply nor has it been referred to or stated in the impugned order of August 1 1977 the Special Land Acquisition Officer has no power or authority to reject the reference application on the ground that the land was forfeited for the alleged breach of the condition of payment of the occupancy price. ( 5 ) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision of Bombay High Court in MAHADEO KRISHNA PARKAR V. MAMLATDAR OF ALIBAG A. I. R. 1944 BOMBAY 200 that the Court to which a reference has been made has always a power to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the reference made to it by investigating as to whether the statutory conditions required for making a valid reference have been complied with or not. The learned Assistant Government Pleader wanted me therefore to consider that if as a result of the subsequent event taking place the land in question has been forfeited and the petitioner who claims herself to be the person interested in the land had ceased to have any interest in it this Court can certainly look into it and see whether these statutory conditions are satisfied for making a reference as was sought by the petitioner. I have not been able to appreciate how in the first place the decision of the Bombay High Court can be of any assistance to the cause of the learned Assistant Government Pleader because it is for the Court to which the reference is made under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the matter or not. I am not called upon to exercise that power of the Court since I am not a Court of reference but I am hearing this revision application under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the matter or not. I am not called upon to exercise that power of the Court since I am not a Court of reference but I am hearing this revision application under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order refusing to make the reference under sec. 18 (1) read with sec. 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is also another reason for rejecting this contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the award made under sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act continues to be final and binding between the Government and the persons interested till it is amended under sec. 12a for the limited reasons and on the grounds specified therein. It is to be recalled that it is nobodys case that the award in question was amended. If the award in question was not amended it would continue to be final and binding to the parties and I cannot consider the alleged subsequent event that is said to have taken place. The event on which reliance has been placed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the forfeiture of the land in question to the Government and cesser of interest of the petitioner therein for her failure in payment of the occupancy price. If this is the event which has taken place the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have amended the award if it was permissible for him to do so within the period of limitation prescribed under sec. 12a. If the amendment is not made as required by the Act the award in question where the petitioner is admittedly shown as a person interested in the three pieces of land and therefore entitled to compensation as awarded therein I do not think that the Special Land Acquisition Officer can go behind the award consider certain subsequent events which are alleged to have taken place and read the amendment as if it was amended without effecting the amendment as prescribed by law. To the extent to which he has done this he has not only exceeded the jurisdiction but also failed to exercise his jurisdiction which is vested in him to make reference which is required by law. To the extent to which he has done this he has not only exceeded the jurisdiction but also failed to exercise his jurisdiction which is vested in him to make reference which is required by law. ( 6 ) THE result is that this revision application is allowed and the impugned order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of August 1 1977 is set aside and the matter should go back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer with the direction that he must make a reference under sec. 18 (1) to the Court of competent jurisdiction within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ by him. The Government shall pay costs to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application allowed. .